Social-Emotional Learning Improves Academic Achievement—but How Much?

Summary for Educators | Leadership & Instructional Practice

Original Research: “Disentangling the Effects of Social and Emotional Learning Programs on Student Academic Achievement Across Grades 1–12: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”

Authors: Cheyeon Ha, Michael F. McCarthy, Michael J. Strambler, and Christina Cipriano

Source: Review of Educational Research, 2026

THE BIG IDEA

Does teaching students to manage emotions, develop relationships, and make responsible decisions actually improve their academic achievement?

A major research review suggests that the answer is yes—but the academic benefits are generally modest, and the program's duration matters.

Researchers examined 40 studies involving 33,737 students in grades 1–12 to determine whether school-based social-emotional learning (SEL) programs improve academic achievement.

Their findings indicate that students participating in SEL programs performed better academically than students who did not receive these interventions. Improvements appeared in mathematics, literacy, standardized test scores, and grade point averages.

Importantly, the study found stronger and more consistent academic benefits in elementary schools and in programs lasting longer than four months.

The message for principals is significant: SEL and academic instruction need not compete. Well-designed, sustained SEL programs can support the conditions under which academic learning occurs.

THE RESEARCH AT A GLANCE

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. SEL produces measurable academic benefits.

Students receiving universal SEL instruction achieved higher academic results than comparison groups. These improvements were found across a range of programs and school settings. However, the modest average effect cautions against expecting dramatic academic gains from SEL alone.

2. Mathematics and literacy both benefit.

SEL programs are not designed to teach algebra, reading comprehension, or writing directly. Nevertheless, students participating in these programs demonstrated improvements in both mathematics and literacy achievement. Skills such as emotional regulation, persistence, and cooperation may help explain these benefits, although the study did not establish which mechanisms caused the gains.

3. Elementary schools show the strongest evidence.

Academic improvements were particularly consistent among elementary school students. Results for middle school students varied more, and the evidence at the high school level was less extensive. Principals should therefore avoid assuming that identical SEL approaches will work equally well at every grade level.

4. Duration makes a difference.

Programs extending beyond four months demonstrated statistically significant academic benefits, while shorter programs did not show a statistically significant effect in this comparison. This finding raises questions about schools that rely primarily on occasional assemblies, isolated lessons, or brief SEL initiatives.

5. Academic results can be measured in different ways.

Both standardized achievement tests and student grades showed improvement. The researchers considered test-based measurements more precise for estimating SEL's academic effects, making the choice of assessment important when evaluating program success.

6. SEL should complement effective instruction.

The findings support SEL as one contributor to academic improvement—not as a replacement for rigorous curriculum, effective teaching, intervention services, or sustained academic practice.

WHY IT MATTERS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS

The findings challenge the assumption that time devoted to social-emotional learning necessarily detracts from academic achievement.

For example, a fourth-grade teacher who explicitly teaches students how to manage frustration, listen respectfully, and persevere through difficult problems may also be developing skills that support more productive mathematics instruction.

Similarly, a high school teacher who establishes a respectful classroom environment may make it easier for students to participate in discussions, seek help, and recover from mistakes.

These are plausible instructional benefits, although this meta-analysis did not directly test each of these classroom practices.

The researchers estimate that the average SEL participant's achievement improved by approximately 4.2 percentile points compared with the corresponding achievement distribution. This is a meaningful but not transformative gain.

LEADERSHIP ACTIONS

Principals can translate the findings into practical improvements:

1. Audit existing SEL instruction. Determine whether students receive sustained, evidence-based instruction or merely occasional activities.

2. Prioritize consistent implementation. Provide training, coaching, and instructional resources to help teachers deliver SEL effectively throughout the school year.

3. Integrate SEL with academic teaching. Encourage teachers to reinforce self-regulation, productive collaboration, and responsible decision-making during regular lessons.

4. Evaluate academic outcomes. Track reading and mathematics achievement alongside attendance, classroom climate, and student engagement.

5. Adapt to developmental needs. Recognize that elementary, middle, and high school students require age-appropriate approaches rather than a single standardized model.

6. Avoid exaggerated promises. Present SEL as one evidence-supported contributor to improved student achievement, rather than a guaranteed solution to academic underperformance.

AN IMPORTANT CAUTION

The 40 studies were conducted between 2008 and 2020. Consequently, the review does not directly measure the effects of SEL programs introduced after the COVID-19 pandemic. It also provides less conclusive evidence about secondary school achievement than elementary school achievement.

The results support thoughtful investment in SEL, but not the assumption that every program will produce equivalent benefits.

LEADER REFLECTION

If research suggests that sustained social-emotional learning can improve academic achievement, are we providing students with systematic instruction in these skills—or are we expecting them to develop naturally?

The bottom line: The most effective schools may be those that reject the false choice between developing students academically and developing them socially and emotionally. Both matter, and the evidence suggests they can reinforce one another.